Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
TO ATTAIN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION, IMPROVE THE CREASE STIFNESS OF CIGARETTE HINGLED (HLs)
Page 1
Nazish Laraib
Page 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SIX SIGMA TOOLS
Define phase Project charter Deployment Map SIPOC Diagram KPIVs KPOVs Measure Phase Cause & Effect Diagram Sigma Level Box & Whisker Plot Process Capability Measurement System Analysis Testing Hypothesis Design Experiment Failure Mode and Effect Analysis
SIX SIGMA TOOLS FOR THE PROCESS OF FLAT CARTON CREASE STIFFNESS VALUES
Page 3
CREASE STIFFNESS: Crease stiffness is a part of Flat cartons units product called Cigarette Hingled (HLs) used to store cigarettes, it is measured by sensor/transducer equipment by sensing crease bending force. There are many ups of die for paper creasing here they tested only 6 to 7 creases, Stiffness causes runnability problem on customer end. Lemanic Machine produces this problem chronically. After passing six different unit of printing, embossing, cutting and creasing units. It produce crease stiffness problem at C&C unit due to paper quality, die setting and humidity factors. DIE SETTING: They have three plates for different HLs product requirements counter plates, alternate counter plates and cito. Channel makes creases depth and grave, it also includes cutting and die ballades. A normal die setting can produce 25 million average HLs. They manually adjust the die as per instructions. Die Crease pressure, machine speed, sheet displacement contributing elements of producing problem. According to operator, machine can produce 500 HLs per minute. BOARD TYPE: Usually they use three types of board but for HLs right now they are using white coated bleech paper. Board Grammage and thickness affects paper stiffness.
DEFINE PHASE
PROJECT CHARTER DEPLOYMENT MAP SIPOC DIAGRAM KPIVS & KPOVS
PROJECT CHARTER
Page 4
Project Title:
To attain customer satisfaction, improve the crease stiffness of cigarette cartons, HLs.
Business Case
Folding Carton line of Packages company produces Cigarette HLs through rotogravure process by Lemanic and Riviera machines. It is being observed that Lemanic Machine produces beyond specification products that results customer objection due to runnability problem. Therefore it is required by ABC customer to improve crease stiffness specification. A single HL has seven creases, from 1 to 6 these are specified 11 Ncm/m to 18 Ncm/m and only 7th crease has 8 Ncm/m to 14 Ncm/m.
Problem Statement:
Problem arises due to the component of paper board like grammage & thickness, and moisture of the production hall. It has to be improved that process should be lie within specification to achieve desired customer satisfaction.
Crease Values F1-F6
MARCH 19 20
18
Crease Values
19
Crease values
17 16
18
17
15 16 14 3 6 9 12 15 18 Days 21 24 27 30 3 6 9 12 15 18 Days 21 24 27 30
Page 5
18
Crease values
17
16
15 3 6 9 12 15 Days 18 21 24 27 30
It is observed that values crossed the customers specification limits also indicate Process is not stable.
Object
To improve crease stiffness up to 14Ncm/m to 18 Ncm/m.
Metrics:
Primary Metric: Measure 6 to 7 creases of Hingled (HLs) by using equipment of sensor or transducer unit of measure is Ncm/m.
Crease Stiffness: Grammage: Thickness:
Page 6
Customer order
Order specification
Deliver to Customer
No
Verification
Prepare Documentation
PRODUCTION
Lemanic Machine
Paper reel
Stripping
Separate
QUALITY CONTROL
Inspection
Yes
in specification
NO
Rework
Reinspection
No
Review Comti.
DISPATCH
Finished Product
Yes
Page 7
SIPOC DIAGRAM:
Supplier
BSPPL Century
Input
Wheat Straw& Waste Paper Water Temperature
Process
Output
Paper board
Customer
Folding Carton Unit of Packages.
Pulping Process
Printing Sheet
Embossing Unit- 7
Pressure
Unit 7 Embossing
HLs
XYZ Company
Page 8
X
X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6
KPOs
Crease Stiffness
Y
Y
MEASURE PHASE
Cause & Effect diagram Sigma Level Box Plot Process Capability Measurement System Analysis
Page 9
Machine
Operator Lemanic Machine with 6 units Training
Personnel
Measurements
Crease stiffness Values Board Grammage Board Thickness
Crease Stiffness
Coated white Bleach Board Ink Water Manually Die setting Die Pressure Channel Setting Speed Moisture
Material
Method
Environment
Page 10
16 15 14
16.085
16.16 15.59
13.64
13 12 Shifts 1 2 Y1 3 1
13.21
12.955
2 Y2
Remarks: For crease values F1 to F6 shifts 3 controlled die setting accurately as compare to others. (Considered only Y1)
Page 11
Crease Values
16 15 14 13 12 Operator
16.1
16.25 15.845
13.16
13.4
13.305
Israr
Jawad Y1
Zahid
Israr
Jawad Y2
Zahid
Remark: Jawad and performs consistently as compare to others operator Zahid need to
Remarks: Paper thickness at 283 and 288 cm affect the specification of crease values that are skewed.
Page 12
Remarks: Variation is observed in values, that are less than 203 g/m squares for crease
stiffness value
75000
150000
225000
300000
375000
450000
95% C onfidence Interv al for M ean 95% C onfidence Interv al for M edian 95% C onfidence Interv al for S tD ev 67748
Remarks: According to standard design speed of machine has to produce 382923 hl/hr. Average value tell that the speed is 300669 hl/hr. Even shape of the distribution is skewed.
Page 13
Summary for Y
A nderson-D arling N ormality Test A -S quared P -V alue M ean S tD ev V ariance S kew ness Kurtosis N M inimum 1st Q uartile M edian 3rd Q uartile M aximum 16.363 16.281 9 5 % C onfidence Inter vals
Mean Median 16.3 16.4 16.5 16.6 16.7
0.45 0.277 16.541 1.108 1.227 0.088925 0.483635 150 13.240 15.888 16.425 17.250 19.580 16.720 16.668 1.249
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
95% C onfidence Interv al for M ean 95% C onfidence Interv al for M edian 95% C onfidence Interv al for S tD ev 0.995
Page 14
Box-Cox Plot of Y
1.20
Lower CL Upper CL Lambda (using 95.0% confidence) Estimate 0.68 -1.02 2.37 0.50
1.15
StDev
1.10
1.05
0.40 0.362 4.0648 0.1363 0.0186 -0.035624 0.532963 150 3.6387 3.9859 4.0528 4.1533 4.4249 4.0868 4.0827 0.1537
3.75
3.90
4.05
4.20
4.35
95% C onfidence Interv al for M ean 95% C onfidence Interv al for M edian 95% C onfidence Interv al for S tD ev 0.1224
Page 15
Process Capability of Y
transformed data
Within O v erall P otential (Within) C apability Cp 0.66 Low er C L 0.58 U pper C L 0.74 C PL 0.85 C PU 0.47 C pk 0.47 Low er C L 0.39 U pper C L 0.54 O v erall C apability Pp Low er U pper PPL PPU P pk Low er U pper C pm Low er 0.61 C L 0.54 C L 0.68 0.79 0.43 0.43 C L 0.36 C L 0.51 * CL *
3.7
O bserv ed P erformance P P M < LS L 13333.33 P P M > U S L 93333.33 P P M Total 106666.67
3.8
3.9
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
Comments: There is variation in paper crease stiffness values. Thus process is not capable according to the value of Cpk and Cp.
13 13 13 13 13 13
Page 16
1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5
13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 17 17 17 17 17
18.034 16.068 18.225 16.437 16.401 15.532 16.842 17.216 16.78 15.606 17.752 15.947 17.127 15.157 16.195 15.431 16.686 16.26 18.21 15.695 17.036 16.109 16.974 15.273 17.381 16.533 17.378 17.994 18.344 16.534 18.269 17.06 18.19 17.267 17.116 15.721 17.214 17.47 17.818
Page 17
5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
17 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18
16.336 18.132 16.576 17.832 16.461 18.46 16.074 17.36 18.412 16.989 16.685 19.138 16.787 18.301 16.413
Page 18
G age Linearity C oef S E C oef 15.359 1.106 -0.89243 0.07090 0.9380 16.5100 R-S q % Linearity
Reference A v erage 13 14 15 16 17 18
G age Bias Bias % Bias 1.52615 8.2 4.30950 23.3 2.43600 13.2 1.38690 7.5 1.49500 8.1 0.06760 0.4 -0.53810 2.9
Bias
Percent
50 0
Linearity
Bias
Gage Linearity and Bias examines gage linearity and accuracy In Gage bias section reference averages from 13 to 16 shows bias because values are less than 0.05.In Gage Linearity, slope value also less than 0.05 that shows gage is producing non linear results. (for good gage it should be linear).
Page 19
Gage R&R
Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Part-To-Part Total Variation Process tolerance = 7 Study Var (6 * SD) 5.20041 5.20041 2.50712 5.77321 %Study Var (%SV) 90.08 90.08 43.43 100.00 %Tolerance (SV/Toler) 74.29 74.29 35.82 82.47 VarComp 0.751230 0.751230 0.174601 0.925832 %Contribution (of VarComp) 81.14 81.14 18.86 100.00
is not acceptable and according to action group definition for gage acceptance it is considered poor.
Page 20
Components of Variation
75
S Chart
Sample StDev
% Contribution % Study Var % Tolerance
U C L=1.475 _ S =0.859
P er cent
50 25 0
LC L=0.244 1 2 3 P ar t 4 5 6
G age R&R
P art-to-P art
C15 by Part
19.5
XBar Chart
U C L=17.864
Sample M ean
_ _ X=17.026
LC L=16.188 1 2 3 P ar t 4 5 6
3 P ar t
The percent contribution from Gage R&R ia larger than that of part to part, telling you that much of the variation is due to difference between gage R&R.
ANALYZE PHASE:
Testing Hypothesis Correlation & Regression Analysis
Page 21
TESTING HYPOTHESIS
Israr
Operator
Jawad
Zahid
0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 95% Bonferroni Confidence Intervals for StDevs
Comment: Less variation in Jawad performance. Test for Equal Variances: Y versus Operator
95% Bonferroni confidence intervals for standard deviations Operator Israr Jawad Zahid N 31 63 56 Lower 0.87415 0.80205 1.00041 StDev 1.14684 0.97581 1.23059 Upper 1.64223 1.23806 1.58710
Bartlett's Test (Normal Distribution) Test statistic = 3.18, p-value = 0.204 Levene's Test (Any Continuous Distribution) Test statistic = 0.26, p value = 0.770
Page 22
R-Sq = 0.55%
R-Sq(adj) = 0.00% Individual 95% CIs For Mean Based on Pooled StDev --+---------+---------+---------+------(---------------*---------------) (----------*----------) (-----------*----------) --+---------+---------+---------+------16.25 16.50 16.75 17.00
N 31 63 56
Inferential statistics results tell us that operators performance are almost equal because p-value is 0.668 that is greater than 0.05.
Page 23
Versus Fits
4 2
Residual
Percent
90 50 10 1 0.1
0 -2 -4
-4
-2
0 Residual
16.50
16.55
16.65
16.70
Histogram
4 30
Frequency Residual
Versus Order
2 0 -2 -4
1 1 0 20 30 40 5 0 6 0 7 0 80 90 00 1 0 2 0 3 0 40 50 1 1 1 1 1 1
20 10 0
-3
-2
-1 0 Residual
Observation Order
Boxplot of Y
20 19 18 17
Y
16 15 14 13 Israr Jawad Operator Zahid
Here histogram makes a bell shape curve pattern and residual follow a straight line thus normality assumption fulfilled.
Page 24
Shift1
SHIFT
Shift2
Shift3
0.7
0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 95% Bonferroni Confidence Intervals for StDevs
95% Bonferroni confidence intervals for standard deviations SHIFT Shift1 Shift2 Shift3 N 52 55 43 Lower 0.79187 1.00179 0.86764 StDev 0.98111 1.23441 1.09622 Upper 1.27930 1.59621 1.47390
Bartlett's Test (Normal Distribution) Test statistic = 2.73, p-value = 0.255 Levene's Test (Any Continuous Distribution) Test statistic = 0.53, p-value = 0.589
Page 25
Versus Fits
4 2
Residual
-4 -2 0 Residual 2 4
Percent
90 50 10 1 0.1
0 -2 -4 16.40
16.45
16.55
16.60
Histogram
30 4
Versus Order
Frequency
20 10 0
Residual
-3 -2 -1 0 Residual 1 2 3
2 0 -2 -4
1 1 0 2 0 3 0 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
Observation Order
In Shift analysis, histogram makes a bell shape curve pattern and residual follow a straight line
Page 26
Boxplot of Y
20 19 18 17
Y
16 15 14 13 Shift1 Shift2 SHIFT Shift3
Null Hypothesis: H (shift 1)= (shift 2) = (shift 2) Alternate Hypothesis: Ha (shift 1)(shift 2) (shift 2)
One-way ANOVA: Y versus SHIFT
Source SHIFT Error Total DF 2 147 149 SS MS F 0.94 0.47 0.38 181.85 1.24 182.78 R-Sq = 0.51% P 0.685
S = 1.112
R-Sq(adj) = 0.00% Individual 95% CIs For Mean Based on Pooled StDev -------+---------+---------+---------+-(------------*-----------) (-----------*-----------) (-------------*------------) -------+---------+---------+---------+-16.25 16.50 16.75 17.00
N 52 55 43
Page 27
REGRESSION ANALYSIS
To find out the relationship between variables we apply multiple regression analysis technique and observe that which variable part huge effect on response value.
Y = Response variable (dependent variable) crease value X1 =Independent variable Moisture X2 = Board Grammage X3 = Paper thickness
R-Sq = 4.9%
R-Sq(adj) = 2.9%
Analysis of Variance Source Regression Residual Error Total Source Moisture Board Grammage Paper Thickness1 DF 3 146 149 DF 1 1 1 SS 8.881 173.904 182.784 Seq SS 1.553 6.327 1.001 MS 2.960 1.191 F 2.49 P 0.063
Unusual Observations
Page 28
Moisture 6.25 6.10 6.14 6.40 6.32 6.21 5.70 5.70 6.06 5.68 5.65 6.79 6.31 6.40
Y 18.6800 19.5800 19.5800 19.0700 16.9000 14.7200 16.2700 16.6400 18.8100 16.6400 15.0100 15.5800 13.2400 13.6100
Fit 16.3965 16.9273 16.9060 16.7674 16.9300 16.9359 16.5072 16.8697 16.4094 16.8265 16.8745 16.0145 16.0744 16.2762
SE Fit 0.1094 0.1781 0.1707 0.1870 0.8389 0.1773 0.3384 0.3089 0.2131 0.3145 0.3445 0.3221 0.2050 0.1413
Residual 2.2835 2.6527 2.6740 2.3026 -0.0300 -2.2159 -0.2372 -0.2297 2.4006 -0.1865 -1.8645 -0.4345 -2.8344 -2.6662
St Resid 2.10R 2.46R 2.48R 2.14R -0.04 X -2.06R -0.23 X -0.22 X 2.24R -0.18 X -1.80 X -0.42 X -2.64R -2.46R
R denotes an observation with a large standardized residual. X denotes an observation whose X value gives it large leverage.
Regression equation shows that there is relation between board grammage and crease value. Thus board grammage affects crease value.
Versus Fits
3.0 1.5
Residual
-4 -2 0 Residual 2 4
Percent
90 50 10 1 0.1
0.0 -1.5 -3.0 16.00 16.25 16.50 16.75 Fitted Value 17.00
Histogram
30 3.0
Versus Order
Frequency
20 10 0
Residual
-3 -2 -1 0 Residual 1 2
Observation Order
Page 29
IMPROVE PHASE:
Design of Experiment. Failure Mode and Effect Analysis
DESIGN OF EXPERIMENT
DOE tell us that which input(variable) has effect on the crease values Factors: Levels
1. Board Grammage: 204, 210 gram 2. Paper Thickness: 285, 291 3. Moisture: 6%-7% Factors setting values.
Blocks
1 1 1
Page 30
4 23 7 21 20 14 12 8 3 5 2 24 19 13 6 17 1 15 22 16 9
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
210 204 204 204 210 210 210 210 204 204 210 210 204 204 210 204 204 204 210 210 204
291 291 291 284 291 284 291 291 291 284 284 291 291 284 284 284 284 291 284 291 284
6 7 7 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 7 6 6 7 7 7 6
15.54 17.45 15.87 18.00 16.00 15.00 14.54 14.00 16.00 18.00 16.21 15.00 14.25 15.35 17.95 16.00 15.00 18.00 15.00 15.00 14.33
R-Sq(pred) = 0.00%
Page 31
It is being observed that paper grammage and moisture have impact on crease value of HLs
Mean
15.60 204 Moisture 16.20 16.05 15.90 15.75 15.60 6 7 210 284 291
Paper grammage and thickness have negative relation with crease value as both values increases crease values decreases. While moisture value increase crease value also increases.
Page 32
Boar d Gr ammage
16
15 17
P aper T hickness
16
15
M oistur e
Main effect plot for crease values shows interaction between paper grammage &paper thickness and Board grammage and moisture on the other side paper thickness and moisture are independent.
Page 33
15.5667 291
15.3600
Paper Thickness
17.1167
15.9833 7 Moisture 6
16.8867 210
95 90 80
Percent
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5 AC
-3
-2
-1 0 1 Standardized Effect
Page 34
Term
A C ABC BC 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Standardized Effect 2.5 3.0
Pareto chart shows that the main effect on the curl values is being caused by Paper grammage and moisture combination .
Residual Plots for Crease value
Normal Probabilit y Plot
99 90 50 10 1 -2 -1 0 Residual 1 2 2
Versus Fit s
Residual
Percent
Hist ogram
6.0 2 1 0 -1 -2
Versus Order
Frequency
Residual
4.5
8 10 12 14 16 18 Observation Order
20
22
24
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38